Well I'm done in here, we made the point, Gok there are no assumptions its all obvious in the film. Try not to look so deep into it.

That's pretty much my attitude too. I don't want anyone to think I'm getting pissy and walking away from this topic. I just made my point and have nothing constructive left to add.

I guess we're just going to have to chalk this up to a difference in perception. Where you see an unexplained moral shift between the first and second films I see a well reasoned moral evolution over the course of all three movies.

The exposition that was given to us at the outset of ROTF establishes that the NEST alliance was formed to hunt down and eliminate the remaining Decepticons that went into hiding after Megatron was killed. One could easily argue that both Sideways and Demolished were posing no threat to anyone until the combined efforts of this alliance cornered them, essentially entrapping them. They were not engaged in any sort of misdeed other than being Decepticons. They did NOT become a danger to anyone until being forced to flee. Kinda sounds like racial profiling to me, but it establishes that the alliance was taking a more proactive approach to potential Decepticon threats. One could further argue that Optimus and Sideswipe illegally executed their fleeing opponents, with every other member of the alliance being an accessory to these crimes. That's not how I see it. I view it as a preemptive strike against enemies of justice and order who would do us harm.

I'd completely forgotten about this argument! This brings along a whole different question to Optimus Prime and the Autobots' morality! If you surround your enemy, why not offer them the chance to surrender? Then if they resist or say no - you just kill them. At least give them the opportunity. It's like in the end of Star Trek when Kirk tells that Romulan dude (played by Eric Bana... can't remember the character's name atm) -- as the Romulan ship is being destroyed by that black hole thingy made by red matter, Kirk offers the Romulans a chance to surrender and to transport survivors onto the Enterprise, but the Romulan tells him that he would rather die than accept help from him. So Kirk obliges and destroys the Romulans - as per their wishes. Kirk probably wanted to kill the Romulans - they just destroyed the entire planet of Vulcan... and he probably estimated that they would refuse any offer to surrender, but at least he stood his moral high ground and made the offer first.

 

The comics offer an explanation for why Demolishor wasn't given the option to surrender, but the film itself doesn't seem to offer an explanation for it. Again, audiences are left to invent assumptions that it's a pre-emptive strike for justice or whatever. Ya know, without knowing ANY history about these Decepticons. Even racial profiling doesn't work that way - you may be extra wary or suspicious of someone of a certain racial profile and maybe ask them some questions or check their ID... but you're not going to shoot them or arrest them straight away unless they've actually done something wrong.

 

Makes for good conversation though Gok.

Well, this is a discussion board is it not? :) Like I said, I'm actually inclined to agree with you guys, but I must admit that I wish there were more concrete canonical evidence to back our beliefs. The counter arguments I'm submitting to you guys is stuff that other people have put toward me when I've talked about the films, and I've often found myself unable to defend the films and characters like Optimus Prime when mounted against such arguments. So if anything, I'm hoping you guys CAN beat me in this debate so that I can use those arguments for myself next time I get in a real debate with someone who questions Optimus Prime's morality and so forth. ;)

 

And for the record I'm NOT one to gang up on somebody but whether you are playing devils advocate, expressing the viewpoints of others who questioned Optimus' moral fiber, or genuinely don't see what I'm talking about, you're in the minority. That means the majority of people discussing in this thread (and indeed in other threads on this site that tackle a similar topic) feel the movies DID do a sufficient job of demonstrating the character evolution I've talked about.

I agree with the majority's opinions about Optimus Prime's moral fibre, but I don't agree that the films provided enough evidence to support it. What I'm _really_ questioning here is the quality of story-telling in the films. Because a well written story sufficiently supports itself and audiences wouldn't even be having these kinds of debates in the first place.

 

Well I'm done in here, we made the point, Gok there are no assumptions its all obvious in the film. Try not to look so deep into it.

Well... that didn't answer any of my questions. :(

 

when optimus said "no sam" i was only under the assumption that he said that because he didn't know what it would do to megatron.. it could've made megatron more powerful.. and i think it also could've exploded killing everyone (a little foggy on that) and i also assumed he didn't want him doing that because then sam would be putting himself in danger

He knew that merging the AllSpark with a Transformer Spark would destroy that Spark. Ratchet affirmed this when Optimus told the Autobots of his plan and Ratchet said, "The Cube is pure energy, it would be suicide!" (or similar words of such effect).

 

It ain't the Underbase! :D (even if it's also a cube that originated from Cybertron and was ejected into space by and hurtled aimlessly through space until it came to Earth... just like the Underbase! But aside from that they're nothing alike! :P)

 

on a side note.. i don't think you can throw in examples and excerpts from the comics into this discussion. those are not written by the movie writers..

I believe the comic adaptations of the movies are based on the movie scripts - written by the movie writers then adapted for the comics. Most likely based on earlier versions of the scripts too, so it seems that an earlier version of the ROTF script had Optimus Prime saying, "I wish there were another way," before killing Demolishor - but that line was omitted from the final draft.

 

all i can say about the bolded paragraph is.. give me a break. seriously.

 

i mean the autobots/ the world was almost destroyed and taken over in TF1.. you don't think that would change someone? it's WAR. it's a WAR that has gone on for two long. it's a WAR that needs to end. that justifies primes actions.

 

i just don't get it

So the ends justify the means, eh?

 

In DotM Sentinel Prime said, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." -- i.e. the needs of the Transformers and Cybertron (assuming the Cybertronians are more numerous than humans, or perhaps Sentinel Prime values TF life over human life - after all, if the human race was in danger and the only way to save Earth was to enslave a massive colony of intelligent ants - would you support it?). In ROTF Megatron asked Optimus Prime if the fate of Cybertron was not worth the life of one human.

 

Optimus Prime's response: "YOU'LL NEVER STOP AT ONE!" <---altruism right there, mate. :)

 

A consequentialist would say, "Gee, you're right! The needs of the many do outweigh the needs of the few, and sacrificing one human IS worth it to save our planet and our people! I'm sorry Sam..."

 

this isn't G1. autobots are ALLOWED to KILL decepticons. simple as that. ever think prime had the "i don't want to kill them" attitude because it was a kids tv show, none of the robots were ever killed because the autobots always won, and when the autobots win, the decepticons live..

 

and lets see, megatron came back in rotf.. why would prime risk that happening again with megatron or any other decepticon. it's not like prime followed megatron and stalked him after he killed the fallen. prime hasn't picked a fight with any robot that wasn't looking for one. and as we've learned. .. a robot is NOT defeated until it's DEAD. easy.

The question wasn't just about killing. It was about executing - two entirely different things. Optimus Prime killed Megatron and The Fallen in combat - he didn't execute them. So I was never questioning that.

Everyone of your questions has been answered Gok. Stop trying to drag this out.

Everyone of your questions has been answered Gok.

Not conclusively and objectively.

 

"It's all in the movie and it's obvious. You're blind if you can't see it." <---not an objectively conclusive answer.

Other answers have been based on subjective conjecture -- assumptions that people have made, but without actual basis on objective canonical evidence from the films.

 

If there has been any answers to my questions based on objective and conclusive canonical evidence from the films, then please point it out to me.

 

Stop trying to drag this out.

I will as soon as someone answers my questions "properly"! (by that I mean a comprehensively conclusive answer supported by canonical evidence from the films)

 

A "forum" (noun) is an assembly or meeting place for the discussion of questions. This thread is posted in the "Transformers Movie/Sequel Discussion" section in a thread that, in my understanding, is meant to be about asking questions about DotM. And the thread author has not excluded making discussion or comments of this nature. For example, I wouldn't make these comments on the Transformers 4 ideas from those who like the TF movies thread because the author of that thread has explicitly stated "Please no negative comments about how the franchise sucks." -- so because the author of that thread has asked everyone not to troll his thread with negative comments about the movie, I have respectfully avoided posting critical or 'negative' comments about the movie on that thread.

 

If you prefer, we can continue this discussion on the Is movie Optimus Prime more sadistic than movie Megatron? thread - which explicitly questions Movie Optimus Prime's morality. I've already made similar comments on that thread (which you replied to as well), but the conversation seemed to have been more lively here. But I'm more than happy to shift the conversation over there everyone feels that would be a more relevant/appropriate place to do it.

Everyone of your questions has been answered Gok. Stop trying to drag this out.

 

Everyone of your questions has been answered Gok. Stop trying to drag this out.

I'm not wasting any more time on this. When someone is so married to their preconceived notions no argument, however well reasoned, will sway them. Everyone else in this thread seems to grasp what I've said and that's good enough for me. In your thread about the UCM and properly counting Transformer collections, Gok, you talk about democracy and majority rule and accepting the rules established by popular vote whether you agree with them or not. Popular vote in this thread indicates your opinion is well in the minority. You can either accept that or appear hypocritical. Regardless, I'm done. We've proven our case "properly" and conclusively. The declaration of one man to the contrary doesn't make it true.

And I bear you no ill will Gok. I've just learned on these forums you can't talk to certain people about certain things.

Gah, this discussion's going nowhere. Let's agree to disagree on this. :)

Can I also point out that ironhide and Sideswipe gave the dreads the chance to walk away, and it was only when one of them did the dirty and attacked ironhide with a hidden weapon that they got their asses kicked :P

 

Sorry, couldn't help it...

I also don't harbor any ill will towards you Gok, Like I don't with Atmo and Tramp. But every case has been shown. Every point made is in popular vote.

 

There is no need for you to keep dragging this out. Are you going to be hypocritical? Like what Jason X said about your UCM which you said was done with popular vote?

 

Think about it I'm done in here

This thread is meant to be about questions about DotM, not questions about my posting conduct. I've replied to Lord_Onslaught via PM to avoid derailing this thread any further.

I guess we're just going to have to chalk this up to a difference in perception. Where you see an unexplained moral shift between the first and second films I see a well reasoned moral evolution over the course of all three movies.

The exposition that was given to us at the outset of ROTF establishes that the NEST alliance was formed to hunt down and eliminate the remaining Decepticons that went into hiding after Megatron was killed. One could easily argue that both Sideways and Demolished were posing no threat to anyone until the combined efforts of this alliance cornered them, essentially entrapping them. They were not engaged in any sort of misdeed other than being Decepticons. They did NOT become a danger to anyone until being forced to flee. Kinda sounds like racial profiling to me, but it establishes that the alliance was taking a more proactive approach to potential Decepticon threats. One could further argue that Optimus and Sideswipe illegally executed their fleeing opponents, with every other member of the alliance being an accessory to these crimes. That's not how I see it. I view it as a preemptive strike against enemies of justice and order who would do us harm.

I'd completely forgotten about this argument! This brings along a whole different question to Optimus Prime and the Autobots' morality! If you surround your enemy, why not offer them the chance to surrender? Then if they resist or say no - you just kill them. At least give them the opportunity. It's like in the end of Star Trek when Kirk tells that Romulan dude (played by Eric Bana... can't remember the character's name atm) -- as the Romulan ship is being destroyed by that black hole thingy made by red matter, Kirk offers the Romulans a chance to surrender and to transport survivors onto the Enterprise, but the Romulan tells him that he would rather die than accept help from him. So Kirk obliges and destroys the Romulans - as per their wishes. Kirk probably wanted to kill the Romulans - they just destroyed the entire planet of Vulcan... and he probably estimated that they would refuse any offer to surrender, but at least he stood his moral high ground and made the offer first.

 

The comics offer an explanation for why Demolishor wasn't given the option to surrender, but the film itself doesn't seem to offer an explanation for it. Again, audiences are left to invent assumptions that it's a pre-emptive strike for justice or whatever. Ya know, without knowing ANY history about these Decepticons. Even racial profiling doesn't work that way - you may be extra wary or suspicious of someone of a certain racial profile and maybe ask them some questions or check their ID... but you're not going to shoot them or arrest them straight away unless they've actually done something wrong.

 

Makes for good conversation though Gok.

Well, this is a discussion board is it not? :) Like I said, I'm actually inclined to agree with you guys, but I must admit that I wish there were more concrete canonical evidence to back our beliefs. The counter arguments I'm submitting to you guys is stuff that other people have put toward me when I've talked about the films, and I've often found myself unable to defend the films and characters like Optimus Prime when mounted against such arguments. So if anything, I'm hoping you guys CAN beat me in this debate so that I can use those arguments for myself next time I get in a real debate with someone who questions Optimus Prime's morality and so forth. ;)

 

And for the record I'm NOT one to gang up on somebody but whether you are playing devils advocate, expressing the viewpoints of others who questioned Optimus' moral fiber, or genuinely don't see what I'm talking about, you're in the minority. That means the majority of people discussing in this thread (and indeed in other threads on this site that tackle a similar topic) feel the movies DID do a sufficient job of demonstrating the character evolution I've talked about.

I agree with the majority's opinions about Optimus Prime's moral fibre, but I don't agree that the films provided enough evidence to support it. What I'm _really_ questioning here is the quality of story-telling in the films. Because a well written story sufficiently supports itself and audiences wouldn't even be having these kinds of debates in the first place.

 

Well I'm done in here, we made the point, Gok there are no assumptions its all obvious in the film. Try not to look so deep into it.

Well... that didn't answer any of my questions. :(

 

when optimus said "no sam" i was only under the assumption that he said that because he didn't know what it would do to megatron.. it could've made megatron more powerful.. and i think it also could've exploded killing everyone (a little foggy on that) and i also assumed he didn't want him doing that because then sam would be putting himself in danger

He knew that merging the AllSpark with a Transformer Spark would destroy that Spark. Ratchet affirmed this when Optimus told the Autobots of his plan and Ratchet said, "The Cube is pure energy, it would be suicide!" (or similar words of such effect).

 

It ain't the Underbase! :D (even if it's also a cube that originated from Cybertron and was ejected into space by and hurtled aimlessly through space until it came to Earth... just like the Underbase! But aside from that they're nothing alike! :P)

 

on a side note.. i don't think you can throw in examples and excerpts from the comics into this discussion. those are not written by the movie writers..

I believe the comic adaptations of the movies are based on the movie scripts - written by the movie writers then adapted for the comics. Most likely based on earlier versions of the scripts too, so it seems that an earlier version of the ROTF script had Optimus Prime saying, "I wish there were another way," before killing Demolishor - but that line was omitted from the final draft.

 

all i can say about the bolded paragraph is.. give me a break. seriously.

 

i mean the autobots/ the world was almost destroyed and taken over in TF1.. you don't think that would change someone? it's WAR. it's a WAR that has gone on for two long. it's a WAR that needs to end. that justifies primes actions.

 

i just don't get it

So the ends justify the means, eh?

 

In DotM Sentinel Prime said, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." -- i.e. the needs of the Transformers and Cybertron (assuming the Cybertronians are more numerous than humans, or perhaps Sentinel Prime values TF life over human life - after all, if the human race was in danger and the only way to save Earth was to enslave a massive colony of intelligent ants - would you support it?). In ROTF Megatron asked Optimus Prime if the fate of Cybertron was not worth the life of one human.

 

Optimus Prime's response: "YOU'LL NEVER STOP AT ONE!" <---altruism right there, mate. :)

 

A consequentialist would say, "Gee, you're right! The needs of the many do outweigh the needs of the few, and sacrificing one human IS worth it to save our planet and our people! I'm sorry Sam..."

 

this isn't G1. autobots are ALLOWED to KILL decepticons. simple as that. ever think prime had the "i don't want to kill them" attitude because it was a kids tv show, none of the robots were ever killed because the autobots always won, and when the autobots win, the decepticons live..

 

and lets see, megatron came back in rotf.. why would prime risk that happening again with megatron or any other decepticon. it's not like prime followed megatron and stalked him after he killed the fallen. prime hasn't picked a fight with any robot that wasn't looking for one. and as we've learned. .. a robot is NOT defeated until it's DEAD. easy.

The question wasn't just about killing. It was about executing - two entirely different things. Optimus Prime killed Megatron and The Fallen in combat - he didn't execute them. So I was never questioning that.

 

 

 

I really don't know how or why you're looking so hard for justification. You use human behavior as examples to compare to sentient robots. What sense is there in that? Humans are fundamentally insane. We try the same things over and over again expecting different results. Robots on the other hand, apparently in the Bayverse don't suffer from this problem. They know when Decepticons are coming to kill and destroy there is only way to stop them. You don't like what? That robots aren't as insane as humans are?

 

The only con that Optimus tried to appeal to was Megatron. He tried until he simply couldn't do it anymore. I can't fathom how that's not completely obvious. The rest of the cons were flunkies and were fighting to the death no matter what and not worth trying to reason with. If Megatron wasn't ever going to back down then no Decepticon would.

 

Optimus was also begging for Sentinel to stop the entire time he had to fight him right up to the point where he had to kill him. It's not like he just said F U Sentinel and just shot him down.

 

I don't know, people with the deep moral issues are just looking for too much. Again, this isn't any cartoon, they aren't drawn up for moral purposes they are blow shit up action movies. People want to see robots beat each other silly they don't care about whether or not the good guys are good enough.

 

So long as they kill the bad guys, and do it well, people like them! That's how action movies work. Transformers has never been the be all end all literary, film, and cartoon worlds. It was a cheesy comic and cartoon series that people still like that Hollywood decided to make a movie out of, that's it! I also don't know where this notion comes from that they must teach some moral lessons. HUH? If that's what people are concerned about then buy a bible!

 

 

NO...It's not the Optimus anyone grew up with. This was merely one who had more balls than the others did. That's it! Perhaps we can get the director of the next movies to make sure that Optimus is only armed with rubber chickens, that way he can't do that much damage!